[Bp_ipv6] Latest ver of Background Paper

[Nathalie Trenaman]

Hi Patrick,


> On 22 Aug 2015, at 13:18, Patrik Fältström <paf at frobbit.se> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Newcomer to this party (dragged in by Marco and Susan), I went through the document and part from correcting some spelling mistakes, I added a few things I think should be added. Maybe you have discussed them and decided they are not to be added:
> 
> Let me see if I remember them now when I type this email...
> 
> 1. NAT/CGN and law enforcement
> 
> We can not not talk about law enforcement and CGN/NAT
> 
> 2. Bitstream services
> 
> We have serious issues in Sweden with monopolies that provide bitstream services that prohibit the ability for the ISP to provide IPv6. Quite often bitstream providers that have been given monopoly situation by the city (or even owned by the city), i.e. completely under control by public services, i.e. indirectly by politicians.
> 

While I completely agree with you on the content (including NAT and Law enforcement and bitstream services) , I think we have to be careful with “jargon”. Language that makes sense to us, but not for outsiders. For example “bitstream services”. I know what these are, bus does everybody?
I also saw the word “homenet” in the doc. I’ve asked my direct colleagues, but none of them knows what it means. 

Cheers,
Nathalie